Here's my 2 cents!

[kelkel2]

I've been putting off posting this for a wile now, but how difficult would it be for carnival to schedule a week (or a cruise) off for every ship once a year for testing and making sure everything is in working order. I feel like with recent events with the 4 ships that have had problems Splendor, Triumph, Dream, Legend, I feel like this is something that should be an industry standard. I mean I know it would be a loss in revenue, but wouldn't that be better than having a ship break down like the Triumph, having to give everyone refunds and then giving them a free cruise etc...I feel like this would be better than waiting for things to break and then fixing the problem. I mean we all do preventative maintenance with our cars why would this be any different?

[che5904]

Well I think you have you have an idea to a point. However, even if I do regular yearly check up and maintenance on my car, that is in no way a sure fire thing that in between something isn't going to break down, which is usually what happens. The older the car the more chance that will happen.

 

In the case of the dream, Carnival states they were doing a regular check and thats when they discovered the problem. So IMO a regular check is going to catch a potential issue faster than just once a year.

[jsfromsc]

You'd think so. And how much better would the staff perform if they were given some time off once in awhile?

[Mikeyz30]

I think you answered you own question. Loss of revenue. Carnival Corp has over 100 ships in their corporation so pulling them out of service for 1 week a year would be a huge hit. Don't forget they are a public company which has to answer to their shareholders, which is all about beating their earnings and producing a profit. This would be a huge hit to them. They are willing to take a chance of having a couple of ships out of service for a week or two rather than putting 100 ships out. Honestly, I know we have seen 4 of their ships have issues, but even if 25 ships (which would be a lot) break down, still better for the company then having all ships out of service.

 

Sorry but they care more about the shareholders than customers.

[TerReuv]

You'd think so. And how much better would the staff perform if they were given some time off once in awhile?

 

You do realize that the cerw does not work 24/7 for 12 months of the year? They work for so many months and then are off for so many months. Please check your facts before you comment.

[etwright]

I am sure there are systems that require a lot more than just an annual inspection and they get checked often, That is what they were doing when they discovered the problem with the Dream. :confused:

[kelkel2]

I think you answered you own question. Loss of revenue. Carnival Corp has over 100 ships in their corporation so pulling them out of service for 1 week a year would be a huge hit. Don't forget they are a public company which has to answer to their shareholders, which is all about beating their earnings and producing a profit. This would be a huge hit to them. They are willing to take a chance of having a couple of ships out of service for a week or two rather than putting 100 ships out. Honestly, I know we have seen 4 of their ships have issues, but even if 25 ships (which would be a lot) break down, still better for the company then having all ships out of service.

 

Sorry but they care more about the shareholders than customers.

 

I feel like you do have a point here, but also you have to answer to share holders when there's a disaster or close to a disaster and you have passengers stranded. That can't be any better for the value of their shares than pulling ships for routine maintenance once a year. I feel like it would be a good time to do walk throughs and inspections of guest areas and mechanical areas and possibly they can spend more time doing that instead of doing it while docked for a half day on embarkation day or what not.

[meluvtogocruise]

I think you answered you own question. Loss of revenue. Carnival Corp has over 100 ships in their corporation so pulling them out of service for 1 week a year would be a huge hit. Don't forget they are a public company which has to answer to their shareholders, which is all about beating their earnings and producing a profit. This would be a huge hit to them. They are willing to take a chance of having a couple of ships out of service for a week or two rather than putting 100 ships out. Honestly, I know we have seen 4 of their ships have issues, but even if 25 ships (which would be a lot) break down, still better for the company then having all ships out of service.

 

Sorry but they care more about the shareholders than customers.

 

Can you tell me what other lines are performing this once a year inspection?

[kelkel2]

Can you tell me what other lines are performing this once a year inspection?

 

Never said they were. I said I think it should be an industry standard. I know no one does them

[meluvtogocruise]

Well I think you have you have an idea to a point. However, even if I do regular yearly check up and maintenance on my car, that is in no way a sure fire thing that in between something isn't going to break down, which is usually what happens. The older the car the more chance that will happen.

 

In the case of the dream, Carnival states they were doing a regular check and thats when they discovered the problem. So IMO a regular check is going to catch a potential issue faster than just once a year.

 

I agree with you. I'm glad they are doing regular checks and I would have been happy to end my cruise in St. Marten rather than continue out to sea.

[ilionite65]

you do realize that the cerw does not work 24/7 for 12 months of the year? They work for so many months and then are off for so many months. Please check your facts before you comment.

 

rude!!!!!!

[TerReuv]

How was I rude? I was specifically responding to the poster who said the crew could use some time off. They do need to check their facts before posting something like that as the crew does have time off. I even said please!

 

rude [ rood ]

1.ill-mannered: disagreeable or discourteous in manner or action

2.indecent: offensive to accepted standards of decency

3.unrefined: lacking refinement or social skills

 

Definately not rude!

[meluvtogocruise]

Never said they were. I said I think it should be an industry standard. I know no one does them

 

Sorry :o I'm just thinking that other lines are not (or seemingly not) experiencing the mechanical breakdowns. If they're not performing an annual inspection, why are their ships floating around without issues?

Based on that I don't think that is the issue with these problems.

 

Mel

 

:)

[mimgan3]

I think you answered you own question. Loss of revenue. Carnival Corp has over 100 ships in their corporation so pulling them out of service for 1 week a year would be a huge hit. Don't forget they are a public company which has to answer to their shareholders, which is all about beating their earnings and producing a profit. This would be a huge hit to them. They are willing to take a chance of having a couple of ships out of service for a week or two rather than putting 100 ships out. Honestly, I know we have seen 4 of their ships have issues, but even if 25 ships (which would be a lot) break down, still better for the company then having all ships out of service.

 

Sorry but they care more about the shareholders than customers.

 

Here's the point I think everyone is missing, the revenue of pulling a ship down for 7 days does not equate to the losses they suffer when these events occur. Think about it, at an average of say, $700 per passenger and a average of 2000 passengers per voyage, this is revenue of $1,400,000.00, allow for the average S&S bill of say $200 per person being an additional $400,000 and other incidentals bringing a total of close to 2mil. Now admittedly these are just math figures to make a point, but now think of the cost of flying those same 2000 passenger to home airports, putting them up in hotels, refunding partial cost of said cruise charges, giving 50% discount of future cruises, and depending upon what event it was that caused this, lawsuits, legal fees, PR nightmares, revenues being lost because consumer confidence in now in the gutter, and you are probably now somewhere north of 10 million being lost or more.

 

Saying all that to say, it is, IMHO, in the best interest to certainly entertain the idea of a yearly overhaul.

[RyanDMB99@aol.com]

It is my understanding that the engineering teams on all (not just Carnival) do routine diagnostics and inspections weekly. It was thru this routine that the Dream engineers discovered this glitch BEFORE it became a bigger problem. The two best days for any boat owner are the day they buy it, and the day they sell it. From small fishing boats to grand cruise liners, ships are fickle machines frought with potential problems. Why do you think EVERY cruise lines contract is written to avoid liability? "Hey we know cruising is fun, however a million things coukd go wrong, so if you sign the dotted line... you accept the risk!"

I'll continue to take my chances... but admittedly with a weary eye... Ive enjoyed my 3 cruises immensely, but the frequency of these issues is raising my eyebrow...

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

[meluvtogocruise]

It is my understanding that the engineering teams on all (not just Carnival) do routine diagnostics and inspections weekly. It was thru this routine that the Dream engineers discovered this glitch BEFORE it became a bigger problem. The two best days for any boat owner are the day they buy it, and the day they sell it. From small fishing boats to grand cruise liners, ships are fickle machines frought with potential problems. Why do you think EVERY cruise lines contract is written to avoid liability? "Hey we know cruising is fun, however a million things coukd go wrong, so if you sign the dotted line... you accept the risk!"

I'll continue to take my chances... but admittedly with a weary eye... Ive enjoyed my 3 cruises immensely, but the frequency of these issues is raising my eyebrow...

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

 

Well Said!

 

Mel ;)

[che5904]

Sorry :o I'm just thinking that other lines are not (or seemingly not) experiencing the mechanical breakdowns. If they're not performing an annual inspection, why are their ships floating around without issues?

Based on that I don't think that is the issue with these problems.

 

Mel

 

:)

 

Actually yes other lines are. You may find this thread interesting.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1808095

 

There is a link posted there which shows other cruise line's incidents as well. Although the figure in this thread is based on Carnival corporation (over 90 ships), as opposed to the other lines with only up to 22 ships in their fleets. It does show this happens on all cruiselines.

[airmj2123]

It is my understanding that the engineering teams on all (not just Carnival) do routine diagnostics and inspections weekly. It was thru this routine that the Dream engineers discovered this glitch BEFORE it became a bigger problem. The two best days for any boat owner are the day they buy it, and the day they sell it. From small fishing boats to grand cruise liners, ships are fickle machines frought with potential problems. Why do you think EVERY cruise lines contract is written to avoid liability? "Hey we know cruising is fun, however a million things coukd go wrong, so if you sign the dotted line... you accept the risk!"

I'll continue to take my chances... but admittedly with a weary eye... Ive enjoyed my 3 cruises immensely, but the frequency of these issues is raising my eyebrow...

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

 

They turn on the emergency generator once per week (or voyage, not sure which). They do it in port.

 

 

The Triumph and Splendor are similar incidents. The Dream was during a routine check where they found an issue. The Legend is azipods which are always malfunctioning... Having all these happen in such a short time is not entirely bad luck but likely there is something wrong. Just not sure what it is (maintenance, design...)

[Mikeyz30]

Here's the point I think everyone is missing, the revenue of pulling a ship down for 7 days does not equate to the losses they suffer when these events occur. Think about it, at an average of say, $700 per passenger and a average of 2000 passengers per voyage, this is revenue of $1,400,000.00, allow for the average S&S bill of say $200 per person being an additional $400,000 and other incidentals bringing a total of close to 2mil. Now admittedly these are just math figures to make a point, but now think of the cost of flying those same 2000 passenger to home airports, putting them up in hotels, refunding partial cost of said cruise charges, giving 50% discount of future cruises, and depending upon what event it was that caused this, lawsuits, legal fees, PR nightmares, revenues being lost because consumer confidence in now in the gutter, and you are probably now somewhere north of 10 million being lost or more.

 

Saying all that to say, it is, IMHO, in the best interest to certainly entertain the idea of a yearly overhaul.

 

Not disagreeing with pulling ships, I said it would never happen. The scenario you describe is for one ship. CCL has over 100 ships in the corporation. What I was getting at is that is around $200 million of lost revenue. I think they would rather take the risk of losing $10 million 5 times then a guaranteed loss of $200 million when pulling ships.

[meluvtogocruise]

Actually yes other lines are. You may find this thread interesting.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1808095

 

There is a link posted there which shows other cruise line's incidents as well. Although the figure in this thread is based on Carnival corporation (over 90 ships), as opposed to the other lines with only up to 22 ships in their fleets. It does show this happens on all cruiselines.

 

 

Thank you! Given that information I just don't feel that alarmed. 5 years and 90 incidents over 55 ships. I won't be cancelling, however I hope that some good comes from all this and that preventative measures will be taken more seriously.

 

Mel

[msmaj4700]

I've been putting off posting this for a wile now, but how difficult would it be for carnival to schedule a week (or a cruise) off for every ship once a year for testing and making sure everything is in working order. I feel like with recent events with the 4 ships that have had problems Splendor, Triumph, Dream, Legend, I feel like this is something that should be an industry standard. I mean I know it would be a loss in revenue, but wouldn't that be better than having a ship break down like the Triumph, having to give everyone refunds and then giving them a free cruise etc...I feel like this would be better than waiting for things to break and then fixing the problem. I mean we all do preventative maintenance with our cars why would this be any different?

 

I agree.